Hi all, With the amount of "preferred" movies by many people in the forum last week, I would like to put a new edge on movies to discuss over the next few weeks. Based on a true story!! This has been used very literally at times as many of you stated. Can we start with three movies that are favourites of mine for differing reasons. 1. The Dambusters 2. The Man Who Never Was! 3. Hell to Eternity. (Based on US marine hero Guy Gabaldon) Whether intentional or not, I saw many messages in these movies. Look forward to some constructive critiques (good - bad) and opinions (how true). Geoff Carn the Pies (explained on request)
I can only comment on the first two and say that they are indeed based on true stories, but then artistic license takes over. In the case of the Dambusters, some of this licence was in the book which the screenplay was based on. As an example, in the Dambusters movie Gibson works out how to maintain accurate height by observing some stage lighting during a theatre show. Never happened. The method was devised by the boffins. Also, it is stated in the film that the Mohne Dam was the most important of the Ruhr dams. It was actually the Sorpe and this was well understood. The Sorpe was one of the targets, but its design made it highly unlikely that the raid would breach it and this was well understood too. See John Sweetman: The Dambusters Raid, Cassell 2002. But the film makers need to pack entertainment value into their 90-180 minutes and somehow tell a story covering weeks of realtime, so artistic licence etc. is quite valid. My advice is don't try and learn history from the commercial cinema, just go and enjoy.
My advice is don't try and learn history from the commercial cinema, just go and enjoy. [post=35003]Quoted post[/post] I ageee that license is used in film however this applies to books as well (Very poorly researched or objective writing). I had nobody involved in the european theatre to consult. Australia in my youth (50's) and to the majority of the populace was movies. Whilst we were not gullible, you cannot go through life questioning all things on film. You must however be prepared to be surprised by the "real truth". Replies from yourself and others will iron out the creases and fill in the gaps for many. Cheers Geoff
It was the same here in the 1950s. The cinema had a huge influence on what people believed to be the truth, particularly us children.
Many of us old Veterans get quite angry, when we see what is written, and what is filmed. What happens then, is that Hollywood version becomes the legendary truth. when in fact, it is a complete load of utter rubbish. I have read books that had the Canadians landing where sword beach should be. And then we found that the Eighth Brigade that opened up the landings first in! in the book just did not exist. Does not do much for the memory of men that gave their lives tomake the landings a success. sapper
Hi Sapper, You may not be able to change what is written however you can always set the record straight for some through this type of forum. Cheers Geoff
I think U-571 wins the award for the most bastardised case ever of distorting the truth to fit the market demographics. Oh, and the less said about the excrementally dire Pearl Harbor, with its ludicrous plot line and supposedly brilliant CGI - which made mothballed 1970s USN warships looked like mothballed 1970s USN warships - the better. Richard
Please don't mention "Pearl Harbor" and "U-571" to me in the same breath, or separately. The only thing good in either picture was Kate Beckinsale in the parachute loft. Hubba-hubba! However, "The Man Who Never Was" pretty much falls apart, as far as history is concerned, after Major Martin reaches Spain. The Germans did not send a spy to England to check his bona fides, they pretty much accepted the documents at face value, and swallowed the bait. That entire spy chase, with Gloria Grahame in shock over the death of her real-life boyfriend, is fake. Ewen Montagu is in the film, playing an RAF bigshot who trashes Clifton Webb's plan in a briefing.
Originally posted by spidge@Jun 6 2005, 03:02 PM Come on group! Need a comment on Hell to Eternity. Has anybody seen it? Cheers Geoff [post=35060]Quoted post[/post] Yes I have seen it, but probably not for 40 years. I don't remember it being shown on TV.
Originally posted by sapper@Jun 4 2005, 12:22 PM Many of us old Veterans get quite angry, when we see what is written, and what is filmed. [post=35010]Quoted post[/post] I can understand this, but what is someone like me, born in 1947, to do? People like me never can have first hand knowledge of WWII and we cannot rely on witness accounts alone. We have to study the work of historians if we want to know anything. Take the Dambusters raid for instance. I have a documentary saved on video which features veterans of the raid which has influenced me a great deal. In particular, former F/Sgt Ken Brown RCAF, who flew one of the bombers which bombed the Sorpe Dam. On the other hand, a lot of what I have learned has been from books. So I have ended up believing there are errors in the film version and the book it was based on because of what I read in other books. Realistically, if we want to understand the past we have to rely on historians and accept that some are better than others. In time, I suppose we learn who to trust. And somewhere along the line we have to accept that some of what we "know" may be wrong and our knowledge is certainly incomplete.
Originally posted by spidge@Jun 6 2005, 09:02 AM Come on group! Need a comment on Hell to Eternity. Has anybody seen it? Cheers Geoff [post=35060]Quoted post[/post] I had to look it up on IMDB.com to make sure I was thinking of the right picture. I really don't know how accurate it was, but certainly the scenes of what happened to the Japanese Americans being interned are somewhat accurate. I have a hard time accepting Jeffery Hunter as a Hispanic/American though. Based on how badly Hollywood did other biographical pictures at that time I'd say it was probably 10% history, 90% Hollywood. To those who mentioned U-571 and Pearl Harbor they are utter trash. The only redeeming value these, or other "historical" movies have is they MIGHT make some people want to do a little research to learn what really happened. I really don't now how much that happens though. My thoughts is that anybody who gets their history from Hollywood pretty much deserves what they get. Those who bother to find out for themselves are richly rewarded. I will give Hollywood, and by that I mean all movie makers, a little benefit of doubt when they make minor changes to make things more dramatic. A good example of this is Sink the Bismarck. It's a pretty accurate retelling of the entire Bismarck episode. The figure played by Kenneth More, and the subplot of the WREN officer, his son being shot down, etc, isn't history, but without it nobody but an historian would ever watch the movie. No British destroyer was sunk, and there were some other things done to make it more interesting. Worse is I think how Lutjens (sp) was portrayed as an ardent Nazi, which I don't believe he was.
Ah From Here to Eternity. This was a superb film based on fiction which deplicted the life in the regular US Army in prewar Pearl Harbour and its army barracks.It was a typical film with an abundance of drama showing everday life in US Army organised system with an illicit love affair and the boiling pot of bullying of the lower ranks. The film ends with the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbour.However this film was famous for showing the well publicised love scene in the ocean swell of the married woman Deborah Kerr and her lover, the Sergeant, played by Burt Lancaster.I think the British censors did not take too well to the love scene.They would not pass a word against it nowadays. Frank Sinatra won an Oscar in the film and had a memorable scene in a drinking bar where he took on the bully,played by Ernest Borgnine.Needless to say the bar was wrecked and Sinatra in his character was acclaimed from being an unstable moody ill disciplined type to hero within his peer group.For Sinatra, in real life, it marked a return to recognition by the establishment as during this period I think, he had been looked on as a "bad boy. Regarding his future, this film gave him a start of a film career where his was recognised for an ability to play serous parts. Saw the film while under the care of HM Government and have seen it since with an uchanged view. I am sure that US Army veterans would have said the film truely reflected regular army life prewar.
Hi Harry, I know that film well and am sure I wach it again just for the "TAPS" rendition at the end. The movie I had on the list was "Hell to Eternity". The life of Guy Gabaldon an American Hispanic war hero who grew up with a Japanese-American family before WW2 and used his knowledge of the Japanese language to take many prisoners on Saipan. Regards Geoff
1. The Dambusters 2. The Man Who Never Was! 3. Hell to Eternity. (Based on US marine hero Guy Gabaldon) I suppose what we all have to bear in mind when you look at these films, is that they are for the general public and not for serious historians. The first film mentioned is the “Dambusters” the film itself is about an hour and a half in length and there could never, no matter how good the scriptwriter; include the full story behind the raid. More to the point, many aspects of the story where still covered by the official secrets act and therefore could not be shown. How, could anyone include the fact, that the use of searchlights to mark altitude was trialled by Bomber Harris in 1924? Or that Harris okayed the raid because he knew the psychological effect the raid would have, not only on the Germans but for the British public at time when victories where few and far between. However, the film did have the benefit of using locations associated with the raid; they had real Lancasters and not some CGI, and most importantly, had the advice of the survivors as technical advisors and actors who had served in the forces during the war, which added to the film. At premier, the entire lot of survivors were reunited and had many good comments about the film. There is also the fact that the film was made at a particular time in the history of Britain and as a result the film was in some ways slanted to carry a particular message again to the British public to remind them of good Britain was. As for the best book on the subject, that has to be John Sweetman’s. However, in the RAFHS Journal No34, there is a very good article on the subject. The Film, “The Man Who Never was” was based upon the book written by Ewen Montagu the man behind the plan, which written in response to the news that a journalist was going to publish a book about the subject and the then War office wanted to “spoil” the story. As a result Montagu, had to rush the book out but was bound by the official secrets act as well! The film itself kept strictly to his book, but he points out in his next book, Beyond Top Secret U. Against that background the next step by the Allies was obvious. As Churchill was to say later, 'Everyone but a bloody fool would know that it's Shishily.'* This conversation with Churchill is the only thing wrongly recorded in my book The Man Who Never Was; in 1952 the Prime Minister's secretariat insisted that a Prime Minister could not be recorded as having said 'bloody' and insisted on its being altered to 'damned'. Today we are more realistic and permissive!”
